Estate of Edward Bremen v. PNC Bank
3115 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Dec 19, 2017Background
- Bremen, an elderly, blind client, was a long-time PNC customer who received DeBlasio’s misappropriations after DeBlasio left PNC but continued personal contact with Bremen.
- DeBlasio, a broker for a PNC affiliate, managed Bremen’s accounts and gained access to Bremen’s finances following his resignation in 2003.
- PNC learned of DeBlasio’s misconduct in 2003–2004, investigated, reimbursed many clients, and disclosed DeBlasio’s departure to clients without fully detailing Bremen’s lack of a loss.
- In 2005, PNC settled with DeBlasio for $87,000 in unresolved client claims; DeBlasio later paid $43,500, which Bremen later claimed funded by stolen Bremen funds.
- Bremen filed suit in 2008, amending in 2009 to add PNC Investments; trial occurred in 2014 with judgments favoring Bremen against DeBlasio and in favor of Bremen against PNC.
- The trial court later entered judgment in 2015; on appeal, the Superior Court split relief, ultimately vacating Bremen’s judgment against PNC and affirming Bremen’s against DeBlasio, while allowing PNC’s cross-appeal relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty owed by PNC after DeBlasio’s resignation | Bremen: confidential/fiduciary duty persisted and warning was required | Bremen’s argument misplaces duty; warning not required post-employment | No duty extended after resignation; warning adequate under Coath rule |
| Whether PNC aided/abetted DeBlasio’s malfeasance | Bremen: PNC aided or concealed crimes and lied to authorities | No record support for aiding/concealing; acted properly | No relief for Bremen on aiding/abetting claim |
| Coordinate jurisdiction/discovery orders violations | PNC failed to comply with prior discovery orders; prejudice to Bremen | No overrule of prior order; no new evidence; no sanction error | No coordinate jurisdiction violation; trial court did not err in handling discovery |
| Punitive damages availability | Punitive damages warranted for outrageous conduct | No underlying willful misconduct proven; punitive damages improper | Punitive damages denied; no underlying basis established |
| Money had and received/ statute of limitations | Trial court awarded money had and received to Bremen | Solicited as unsupported and time-barred | Money had and received theory vacated; cross-appeal sustains limited relief for Bremen on other theories |
Key Cases Cited
- Coath v. Jones, 419 A.2d 1249 (Pa. Super. 1980) (duty to warn may arise after employee discharge when special relationship exists)
- Kreiger v. Brown, N/A (N/A) (string referenced in opinion but not a reported case")
- Brown v. Trinidad, 111 A.3d 765 (Pa. Super. 2015) (credibility of expert witnesses is for the fact-finder)
- True R.R. Assocs., L.P. v. Ames True Temper, Inc., 152 A.3d 324 (Pa. Super. 2016) (standard for affirming a verdict based on credibility of evidence)
- DiGregorio v. Keystone Health Plan E., 840 A.2d 361 (Pa. Super. 2003) (punitive damages and relationship to underlying action)
- Solomon v. Gibson, 615 A.2d 367 (Pa. Super. 1992) (money had and received elements and consideration)
- Brubaker v. County of Berks, 112 A.2d 620 (Pa. 1955) (foundational causation/beneficiary issues for money had and received)
- Kirkbride v. Lisbon Contractors, Inc., 555 A.2d 800 (Pa. 1989) (limits on punitive damages where no underlying cause exists)
- Hilbert v. Roth, 149 A.2d 648 (Pa. 1959) (punitive damages interplay with underlying tort)
- Hutchison ex rel. Hutchison v. Luddy, 870 A.2d 766 (Pa. 2005) (standards for punitive damages and conduct requirements)